Agencies are a nightmare - STAY AWAY

Gerry Asstrix

In the process of looking for a a house a rent, will be looking to do so through rent supplement(2 adults and child, both unemployed)

I know the norm is if reaching an agreement on a property is to sign a lease and to to provide first months rent and a deposit to secure the property.

Have found three properties I may be interested in renting,
one is being rented directly by landlord and the other two by agencies.

I have been to the local CWO in the area in which the properties are to be let, talking to him at length, he said as long as a property is 2 bed and is between the 850-900 rent mark(Central Dublin) we would have no problem getting approval as we have all nessecary means and documents.
He explained to me that the best way to go about securing a place and getting piece of mind for both me and the landlord is to pay the deposit upfront and have the landlord or agency sign an agreement that they are willing to rent us the property at a rental price that is agreeable to the HSE in the area(850-900) and me to pay the deposit up front.

He told me although it may give me better chance get house, do not sign lease as it means Im tied into a legal agreement straight away and leaves me liable and do not pay first months rent as the HSE will approve the rent supplement application in ten days and will pay the rent late every month, so there is no need is us forking over 900 euro that will only have be returned to us.

This suits us as we have the deposit and cannot afford to fork over another 900.

With the property that the landlord is renting outright, she is willing to accept deposit and wait till rent supplement is approved

But with the other two properties, in which are being rented by agencies, they will not accept just the deposit, they want deposit and first months rent, will not sign agreement only a year lease, which is annoying as the property we want rent most is being let by an agency.
Ive told them that there is no reason for us to pay rent as well as deposit as the HSE will be paying first months rent in 2 weeks from moving in. but have found out that agency make their money from the first months, with the reps getting commission which makes things harder for tenants.
Ive actually managed to get in contact with owner of property who is letting through an agency and he would like us move in with just deposit for now, and since getting no joy through agency he may do away with them as they not playing ball with them.

Agencies make things difficult for who need urgent housing, especailly through with rent supplement which is sensitive issue and should be done with a landlord as everyone has their reasons for applying for properties through this process, and it is a personal process.

On sites such as daft and myhome there should be option to exclude properties being let by agencies if the searcher wishes to avoid dealing with them.

My advice to anyone looking to rent, especially if doing so through RS is to avoid agencies like the plague

chicken fingers

Neither you or your partner have jobs, you are getting free money for the government because neither of you has a job.
You are also going to be getting free money to pay off your rent.

Beggars cant be choosers

who_ru

900 euro per month rent supplement! no wonder rents are high.

i'm sorry that you are out of work and i've no doubt that you would take a job if offered but i'd imagine your monthly income is pretty good at the moment. 900 RS + welfare for both parents + child benefit. wonder what this amounts to?

Joey the lips

Chickenfingers I cannot see how you are answering the posters question. I take it you are either reasoning

1. He should go against the advice of the cwo and pay the money

or

2. Risk looseing money he does not have and cannot afford.

Infact i think your post is pointless and insensative.

Gerry Asstrix

chicken fingers wrote: »

Neither you or your partner have jobs, you are getting free money for the government because neither of you has a job.
You are also going to be getting free money to pay off your rent.

Beggars cant be choosers

Im getting money because I cannot afford to house myself, partner or child at present as we have lost our longterm jobs due to the companies we worked for going bust finding it extremely hard to find any sort of employment, so are getting social welfare now which is a pittance, so you see we are unable to pay the extortionate rent that exists in this countrywide at present
We are forced to apply to the state to pay rent for a residence that is suitable and adequate for my family.

Please be more considerate to those who are not as privilaged as you obviously are, we on the dole are not all scoungers as Im sure your implying

Victor

chicken fingers wrote: »

Neither you or your partner have jobs, you are getting free money for the government because neither of you has a job.
You are also going to be getting free money to pay off your rent.

Beggars cant be choosers

Keep it constructive.

Gerry Asstrix

who_ru wrote: »

900 euro per month rent supplement! no wonder rents are high.

i'm sorry that you are out of work and i've no doubt that you would take a job if offered but i'd imagine your monthly income is pretty good at the moment. 900 RS + welfare for both parents + child benefit. wonder what this amounts to?

My partner gets 200 approx and I get 165 approx, so thats a total of 365 a week approx
So plus child benefit for one child in a month we have a total of approx 1500 a month

So with rent that would be we'll say 900.
But couple that with outstanding debts we have which come to near 200 a month, plus food, electricity, gas, essentials for child, keep the car running and other outgoings it is near impossible.

And yes I would take any job at drop of hat, and any who has a job who claim those of us who are unemployed have it handier, I would swap with you anyday.

who_ru

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

But couple that with outstanding debts we have which come to near 200 a month, plus food, electricity, gas, essentials for child, keep the car running and other outgoings it is near impossible.

And yes I would take any job at drop of hat, and any who has a job who claim those of us who are unemployed have it handier, I would swap with you anyday.

i know it's not easy and i sincerely hope things improve for you. with regard to agencies i would advise always stay away from them. if you can deal directly with the landlord, and hope it's a good landlord too. there are way too many amateur landlords around who have no idea what they are doing, or in some instances are so much in debt themselves, can hardly afford to carry out any repairs or improvements when needed.

Plus i agree with you rents are extortionate - but that's another story.

Gerry Asstrix

who_ru wrote: »

i know it's not easy and i sincerely hope things improve for you. with regard to agencies i would advise always stay away from them. if you can deal directly with the landlord, and hope it's a good landlord too. there are way too many amateur landlords around who have no idea what they are doing, or in some instances are so much in debt themselves, can hardly afford to carry out any repairs or improvements when needed.

Plus i agree with you rents are extortionate - but that's another story.

Unfortunately most landlords seem be using agencies for this very reason, and its at the tenants expense.

If only landlords realised that agencies are actually a hindrence and are pointless, all they serve to do, is do the talking for landlords who are not interested or too lazy to deal with tenants directly

The_Conductor

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

Unfortunately most landlords seem be using agencies for this very reason, and its at the tenants expense.

If only landlords realised that agencies are actually a hindrence and are pointless, all they serve to do, is do the talking for landlords who are not interested or too lazy to deal with tenants directly

The reason so many landlords employ agencies to act on their behalves- is because very often they don't want the hassle of having to deal directly with tenants, whenever anything goes wrong (and something will always go wrong). Yes- its expensive for both landlords and tenants- but in theory the tenant has a point of contact should anything go wrong- and the landlord gets a steady income (hopefully) without having a tenant ringing him at weird hours of the night with random questions- or issues that that landlord is not in position to immediately resolve.

The other thing is- presumably agencies would be familiar with all pertinent laws and regulations- saving the landlord the need to familiarise themselves with legislation.

With respect of leases- good luck getting a house without signing a lease. Yes- it is a legally binding agreement- however it lays out the rights and obligations of both the landlord and the tenant in black and white- and is an excellent reference if there is ever a dispute. It suits CWOs to advise prospective RA/RS tenants to not sign leases- but it is highly unlikely any landlord is going to willingly allow a P4 tenancy without good reason.

ztoical

smccarrick wrote: »

The reason so many landlords employ agencies to act on their behalves- is because very often they don't want the hassle of having to deal directly with tenants, whenever anything goes wrong (and something will always go wrong). Yes- its expensive for both landlords and tenants- but in theory the tenant has a point of contact should anything go wrong- and the landlord gets a steady income (hopefully) without having a tenant ringing him at weird hours of the night with random questions- or issues that that landlord is not in position to immediately resolve.

The other reason is that alot of the newer properties are being rented because the owner has had to move away for work and isn't near by to see to any issues tenants might have so they employ an agency. In some regards that is better for the tenant as said owners aren't clued up landlords and tend to not know anything about renting and still see the property as their home.

OP I've no issue with you and your partner getting RA or any other help that your entitled to and am a bit sick of all the bashing we are seeing on boards of late but you do state that you found a property that you can deal direct with the LL and they are ok with taking RA and having the first months rate come later. It's not a case that you've been unable to find anywhere to live, just that it's not the house you prefer. It is standard for those renting from a private LL to pay a deposit and the first months rent in advance which is what the agent is asking. Yes it sucks that aren't willing to be flexible with people but all you can do is make it clear to them that you aren't giving them your business as a result of that and hope if enough people do that for them to change or for LL to hear and ask they alter their policy.

athtrasna

Am confused at the bit about not signing a lease as it would leave you "liable" Liable for what? Without a lease how does the landlord have any security that you will stay? Also most landlords would not be happy that the rent would be paid late each month?

Are you certain that your Rent Allowance will be approved? Have you been renting privately for 6 months already? What happens if you don't get approved or there's a delay?

The_Conductor

athtrasna wrote: »

Am confused at the bit about not signing a lease as it would leave you "liable" Liable for what? Without a lease how does the landlord have any security that you will stay? Also most landlords would not be happy that the rent would be paid late each month?

Are you certain that your Rent Allowance will be approved? Have you been renting privately for 6 months already? What happens if you don't get approved or there's a delay?

I'm confused too.....
I'd be almost inclined to report the CWO for suggesting this- unless satisfactory clarification was received.

The big issue for a lot of landlords out there- is the same everyone else- paying the monthly bills. It really is not the case that a landlord would be happy to get the rent late- sure its better late than to not have rented the place at all- but he/she will incur all sorts of fees with their mortgage providor if they are unable to meet their bills on time (never mind any other charges).

If I were letting my apartment/townhouse/house in an area where there is a reasonable level of demand- and a prospective RA tenant told me that-

1. They weren't willing to pay a months rent in advance along with a deposit of a month
2. Unable to agree to pay the rent in advance on a particular day every month
2. Were not willing to sign a lease-

to be perfectly honest- they'd be wasting my time- regardless of how desperate I was to rent my place- I'd have no security, I'd not have my rent when I need it- and I'd be having nightmares about how I was going to pay my own bills.......

I have absolutely nothing against RA tenants- providing they sign the same lease as everyone else, pay their rent on time and take good care of the property- as would be expected of any tenants.......

If the proposed house is in a town/city- its highly unlikely the landlord would have an issue letting it (an apartment might be different)......

I really don't understand why the CWO is setting standards that make it incredibly difficult for any prospective landlord to agree to let you their property (the lack of a lease alone- never mind anything else- would send alarm bells ringing in most people's minds). One of the pieces of information a landlord gives the PRTB when registering the tenancy- is the date the lease was signed.

Tenancy law, as it stands- provides far more protection for tenants, than it does for landlords. The lack of regulation of the 1970s/1980s/early 1990s- has been comprehensively addressed- to the extent that the pendulum has swung firmly towards the tenant.

If a tenant is going to act the maggot- paying rent late, not signing a lease, not giving a months rent along with a deposit in advance- I'd be shot of them and use the existing law, to evict them at the first convenient opportunity.

Being a RA tenant- does not mean you are treated any differently than any other tenant- its simply the manner in which your rent is paid. You do not however have any additional rights over any other tenant either though.

Gerry Asstrix

athtrasna wrote: »

Am confused at the bit about not signing a lease as it would leave you "liable" Liable for what? Without a lease how does the landlord have any security that you will stay? Also most landlords would not be happy that the rent would be paid late each month?

Are you certain that your Rent Allowance will be approved? Have you been renting privately for 6 months already? What happens if you don't get approved or there's a delay?

Yes we have been renting privately for the last number of years and aslong as a property is 2 bed and the rent 850-900 within this specific area as the rent limit is 900, it shall be approved,
We dig the research before diving in.

If we were to sign a lease and then not be approved RS or there was sudden change in circumstances then the tenant is liable under terms of lease, hence a signed agreement between both parties being drawn up, if the RS application is approved then no problem then signing a year+ lease

Simples

Why would I sign a lease for property I dont know if I can afford in the long term, if Im approved for RS then least I know I can sign it in the comfort of knowing the HSE willl provide bulk of rent

Gerry Asstrix

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm confused too.....
I'd be almost inclined to report the CWO for suggesting this- unless satisfactory clarification was received.

The big issue for a lot of landlords out there- is the same everyone else- paying the monthly bills. It really is not the case that a landlord would be happy to get the rent late- sure its better late than to not have rented the place at all- but he/she will incur all sorts of fees with their mortgage providor if they are unable to meet their bills on time (never mind any other charges).

If I were letting my apartment/townhouse/house in an area where there is a reasonable level of demand- and a prospective RA tenant told me that-

1. They weren't willing to pay a months rent in advance along with a deposit of a month
2. Unable to agree to pay the rent in advance on a particular day every month
2. Were not willing to sign a lease-

to be perfectly honest- they'd be wasting my time- regardless of how desperate I was to rent my place- I'd have no security, I'd not have my rent when I need it- and I'd be having nightmares about how I was going to pay my own bills.......

I have absolutely nothing against RA tenants- providing they sign the same lease as everyone else, pay their rent on time and take good care of the property- as would be expected of any tenants.......

If the proposed house is in a town/city- its highly unlikely the landlord would have an issue letting it (an apartment might be different)......

I really don't understand why the CWO is setting standards that make it incredibly difficult for any prospective landlord to agree to let you their property (the lack of a lease alone- never mind anything else- would send alarm bells ringing in most people's minds). One of the pieces of information a landlord gives the PRTB when registering the tenancy- is the date the lease was signed.

Tenancy law, as it stands- provides far more protection for tenants, than it does for landlords. The lack of regulation of the 1970s/1980s/early 1990s- has been comprehensively addressed- to the extent that the pendulum has swung firmly towards the tenant.

If a tenant is going to act the maggot- paying rent late, not signing a lease, not giving a months rent along with a deposit in advance- I'd be shot of them and use the existing law, to evict them at the first convenient opportunity.

Being a RA tenant- does not mean you are treated any differently than any other tenant- its simply the manner in which your rent is paid. You do not however have any additional rights over any other tenant either though.

The above to me just illustrates the greediness and stubborness of landlords out there today and why many use agencies instead of dealing with tenants directly

Just to clarify on afew points you raised

If I were letting my apartment/townhouse/house in an area where there is a reasonable level of demand- and a prospective RA tenant told me that-

1. They weren't willing to pay a months rent in advance along with a deposit of a month
2. Unable to agree to pay the rent in advance on a particular day every month
2. Were not willing to sign a lease-

Im willing to pay a deposit, no problem, Im obliged to do this as the HSE will not pay this for me, it is entirely up to me raise this money and provide it to the landlord should they require it,which 100% is the case

-Why should I give you a months rent in advance along with a deposit of the same amount?
Im applying for rent supplement which should indicate I have not the money or means to pay rent, it will be come from the state, who will pay for me, they in short time will give you the first months rent provided the RS be approved,
Me handing you a 900 deposit plus 900 in rent which you will only have to give back to me or allow me to keep when the first RS cheque comes, is either going to cause you more hassle or else you want as much cash as you can get upfront,which is just plain greedy

-RS is paid at the end of the month, nothing the tenant can do about this im afraid, its HSE policy, if you dont the prospect of RS tenants receiving their HSE rent cheques at this time then dont accept RS tenants

-In regards signing a lease, no problem signing leases, but in me signing a lease before I even apply for a property as a RS applicant is dangerous, as the it leaves me open to being responsible legally for coughing up a years rent even if the RS application is denied, way too dangerous
Better to sign a agreement together on the perspective tenant prepared to move in and the landlord willing let them live there, an agreed monthly rent price, date moving in, receipt of deposit paid etc,which can be handed into CWO and covers both tenant and landlord legally
If RS is approved, then by all means sign lease.

to be perfectly honest- they'd be wasting my time- regardless of how desperate I was to rent my place

Be honest you would not be a landlord who Id be interested doing business with as you are not interested in the human or personal basis in which I am looking to rent your property and how I intent to apply through the state to pay you that rent,
Your interest is completely commercial, your not interested in doing anything out off kindness, thats fine,i ts you business, after all you renting your property out is a commerical pursuit not an act of charity, just is nice come across kind and considerate landlords now and again

And landlords cant complain about CWOs or what they say to individuals claimants, the CWOs are none of the landlords concern, only the tenants on hard times can deal with CWOs its one of the luxaries we have

athtrasna

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

-Why should I give you a months rent in advance along with a deposit of the same amount?
Im applying for rent supplement which should indicate I have not the money or means to pay rent, it will be come from the state, who will pay for me, they in short time will give you the first months rent provided the RS be approved,

-In regards signing a lease, no problem signing leases, but in me signing a lease before I even apply for a property as a RS applicant is dangerous, as the it leaves me open to being responsible legally for coughing up a years rent even if the RS application is denied, way too dangerous
Better to sign a agreement together on the perspective tenant prepared to move in and the landlord willing let them live there, an agreed monthly rent price, date moving in, receipt of deposit paid etc,which can be handed into CWO and covers both tenant and landlord legally
If RS is approved, then by all means sign lease.

It is standard in this country that rent is paid in advance. Standard deposit is one month's rent (or more) - which is why 99% of landlords require this. You may be a decent RS tenant, like other posters (Graces7 for example) but this board is full of stories of tenants in receipt of RS who don't pay it to the landlord.

What about the landlord, you move in without signing a lease and get rejected for RS? Your logic for not signing a lease is to protect yourself but what protection does the landlord have.

According to your posts you could hand over €900 which is one month's rent, move in, have a problem with RS, and have to move out...what landlord would want that.

Many modern landlords are people who have had to let their property out of sheer desperation, often moving back in with parents. They do not have the financial security of being able to accept late payment nor can they afford an informal tenancy agreement. That's what I think smccarrick was talking about...it's not about being heartless or greedy, it's about about necessity. RS Tenants are not the only people in desperate circumstances, an owner in massive negative equity is also struggling to keep the wolf from the door.

who_ru

athtrasna wrote: »

Many modern landlords are people who have had to let their property out of sheer desperation, often moving back in with parents. They do not have the financial security of being able to accept late payment nor can they afford an informal tenancy agreement.

nor do many of these so called 'modern landlords' have any intention of returning deposits to tenants at the end of the tenancy. stories abound on these boards too about that particular stunt from 'modern landlords'.

athtrasna

That's a general landlord thing not specific to new landlords AND how many posts on here do we get saying people were happy and got their deposits back in full, or they moved in and the landlord had left bread and milk and a bottle of wine? NONE, because people almost only post when things go wrong.

I know a lot of good landlords...have had more than a few in my time. Rented for 10 years and always got my deposit back. I never gave the landlord any reason not to.

The_Conductor

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

The above to me just illustrates the greediness and stubborness of landlords out there today and why many use agencies instead of dealing with tenants directly

Just to clarify on afew points you raised

It really isn't greedy or stubborn on the part of a landlord- to treat tenants in an equal manner, to register a tenancy- as prescribed under the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act, to request a deposit and a month's rent in advance, and to get a lease signed. Its standard operating practice.

If you were on the continent- you could be asked for 3-6 months rent as a deposit, in some countries it may be normal practice to pay rent in arrears- but with a much larger deposit up front..... The 1 month deposit thing- is quite low, and is an Irish thing.

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

Im willing to pay a deposit, no problem, Im obliged to do this as the HSE will not pay this for me, it is entirely up to me raise this money and provide it to the landlord should they require it,which 100% is the case

Fine. Its not an issue then.

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

-Why should I give you a months rent in advance along with a deposit of the same amount?
Im applying for rent supplement which should indicate I have not the money or means to pay rent, it will be come from the state, who will pay for me, they in short time will give you the first months rent provided the RS be approved,
Me handing you a 900 deposit plus 900 in rent which you will only have to give back to me or allow me to keep when the first RS cheque comes, is either going to cause you more hassle or else you want as much cash as you can get upfront,which is just plain greedy

Why should you pay a months rent in advance? Why? Because its standard operating practice. Its what everyone else does. Why should a landlord rent to a tenant who is only willing to pay their bills in arrears? Also- if you check- a landlord does not keep the deposit in lieu of rent- there are very specific purposes for the deposit- as laid out in legislation. Payment of rent is not one of them. The proposals to have the PRTB act as a repository for deposits should hopefully put this bugbear to bed for once and for all.......

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

-RS is paid at the end of the month, nothing the tenant can do about this im afraid, its HSE policy, if you dont the prospect of RS tenants receiving their HSE rent cheques at this time then dont accept RS tenants

RS is paid in a different manner to RA (which is upfront- and paid directly to the landlord). CWOs are normally willing to negotiate on this one. In any case its all going to be academic- when the new payments agency takes over all payments from the HSE, Social Welfare and Agriculture. Its not expected to be up and running before September though.

My point was- if a landlord is in an area where there is a regular demand for rental property- why should he/she consider letting to an RS tenant who pays in arrears- when any other tenant (including an RA tenant) pay a month in advance? Its not rocket science- the way the scheme is- unless a landlord is desperate, there is no reason for him to consider being paid in arrears........

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

-In regards signing a lease, no problem signing leases, but in me signing a lease before I even apply for a property as a RS applicant is dangerous, as the it leaves me open to being responsible legally for coughing up a years rent even if the RS application is denied, way too dangerous
Better to sign a agreement together on the perspective tenant prepared to move in and the landlord willing let them live there, an agreed monthly rent price, date moving in, receipt of deposit paid etc,which can be handed into CWO and covers both tenant and landlord legally
If RS is approved, then by all means sign lease.

Once again- unless a landlord is desperate- why should he take on a tenant who is not in a position to sign a lease? Why should he/she give you their house- before you even know whether your RS application has been approved? A landlord is legally obliged to register a tenancy with the PRTB- stating among other things- the deposit paid and the date the lease was signed. It may suit the CWO to do a back of envelope exercise- such as you are suggesting- but its actually in breach of two different laws, including the major piece of tenancy legislation- the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act.

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

Be honest you would not be a landlord who Id be interested doing business with as you are not interested in the human or personal basis in which I am looking to rent your property and how I intent to apply through the state to pay you that rent,
Your interest is completely commercial, your not interested in doing anything out off kindness, thats fine,i ts you business, after all you renting your property out is a commerical pursuit not an act of charity, just is nice come across kind and considerate landlords now and again

Its wholly irrelevant whether you'd be interested in doing business with me as a landlord or not- I'm not letting property anyhow- so its entirely academic. 'The Human Element' as you put it- should not enter the equation- renting a property from a landlord- or a landlord letting a property to a tenant, is a business transaction. The landlord's bank are not going to consider 'the human element' when applying surcharges on the landlord if his/her mortgage payment is late, you know. Many of the properties currently hitting the rental market are the one and only property that people own- they are not the property of ye olde developer who has a string of houses. Being a day late with the rent- could spell a bad personal credit record for this person- thats the human element- as surely as the human element that you're spelling out.

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

And landlords cant complain about CWOs or what they say to individuals claimants, the CWOs are none of the landlords concern, only the tenants on hard times can deal with CWOs its one of the luxaries we have

First off- there are complaints officers attached to each HSE region, who will receive and review complaints about CWOs (or any other staff members) from literally anyone- landlords, tenants or otherwise.

Secondly- its not a luxury dealing with a CWO when you have signed a contract with a landlord- and the CWO comes back to you at budgettime and says- hey, your RS or RA is being cut EUR100 a month- get this discount from your landlord...... A landlord can legally review rent once a year- and the review must be based on prevailing rents in any given area. Outside of this review- well, as happened previously- your CWO might be using you as a pawn so they don't have to deal with the landlord themselves (who would actually be breaking the law by breaking the review process- as defined in legislation). Check it out- its happened several times.

chicken fingers

OP, some tough love you seem to want to operate outside the bounds of a modern functioning society based around capitalism.
This is understandable since you are in receipt of a large amount of free money.
But you are asking for a "human touch" in something that should really be strictly professional.

For example, today there is another thread on this same forum by a landlord who did exactly what you are looking for a landlord to do. In other words give somebody a free place to stay in the hope that their RS application will be accepted. That was in January and he hasn't seen a dime since.
You need to consider that not getting rent paid because of some problems like this is an extremely bad thing! For those with nothing, you have nothing to lose but this guy could lose what he has paid on his mortgage already and lose his house.

The newspapers have been using a great phrase to sum this up: "sense of entitlement". My advice is to try to stay with friends until you can afford the deposit and first months rent.

Gerry Asstrix

OP, some tough love you seem to want to operate outside the bounds of a modern functioning society based around capitalism.

Living under a capitalist system is something that I and Im sure many others have a big problem with, but thats for another day

This is understandable since you are in receipt of a large amount of free money.

Myself and my partner have worked tirelessly for years on end never once claiming anything from the state other then child benefit, and have nothing to show for it despite living through 'the boom' era, we've payed high taxes to this state for along time and now find ourselves in hard times because of the stupid decisions the state made previously, why shouldnt we be entitled to adequate welfare which I dont deem as 'free' by the way, as I feel we've earned it through years of slogging away working with nothing to show for it

But you are asking for a "human touch" in something that should really be strictly professional.

Im not asking for anything human, Im keeping it very professional, Im offering a landlord my business in paying him/her rent, which will be coming from the state as I cant provide the extortionate high rent rate that exists in this country,
And am doing so logically and protecting both my and their interests, ie paying deposit, handing in RS forms, RS getting approved, me signing lease, landlord getting paid, everybody happy
You imply there should be no 'human touch' in these matters, I find that attitude extremely sad, and poor reflection on society
I would like to see if your conservative elitist attitude remains should you ever fall on hard times, Im sure you would be after your 'free money' like the rest of us

For example, today there is another thread on this same forum by a landlord who did exactly what you are looking for a landlord to do. In other words give somebody a free place to stay in the hope that their RS application will be accepted. That was in January and he hasn't seen a dime since.

Perhaps a delay is the HSE paying the RS, which is not surprising considering how broke the HSE are, this isnt the tenants fault.

You need to consider that not getting rent paid because of some problems like this is an extremely bad thing! For those with nothing, you have nothing to lose but this guy could lose what he has paid on his mortgage already and lose his house.

Ive everything to lose, I want to provide my family the most fundamental necessity, putting a roof over their head,
Just because I didnt buy a house during the 'boom' years not knowing weather I could afford to keep it in future times isnt really my concern,
Its a gamble someone took and it may not have paid off, thats life, they'll have to join the rest of us who have nothing and have ask the state to provide us a home or the money to rent one.

The newspapers have been using a great phrase to sum this up: "sense of entitlement". My advice is to try to stay with friends until you can afford the deposit and first months rent

Me and my partner have worked hard for many years to the benefit of this state, now that same state through incompetence has forced us into unemployment and unable to house ourselves, then yes I feel I have a sense of entitlement to a basic standard of living which that same state should pay for.
The state should after all its citizens not just a select privilaged few, the attitude of 'tough ****' or 'go get a job like the rest of us' isnt holding court anymore as people cant work their way out messes that was not of their creation

ztoical

Gerry Asstrix wrote: »

Ive everything to lose, I want to provide my family the most fundamental necessity, putting a roof over their head

According to your own first post you have been able to find a house with a LL that is willing to meet you on your requests regarding the first months rent and signing a lease, your issue seems to be that you prefered a different house but the agent there is not willing to meet said requests. That is not a fundamental necessity, you have the chance to put that roof over your families head but your being picky which frankly you don't have the luxury to do at this time.

At the start of this thread OP I had some sympathy for you but the more you post the less sympathy I have. My over all impression from this thread and your comments on the renting and saving thread is that you've been either very naive when it comes to managing your money or very foolish. In order to have been taxed as high as you imply you and your partner would both have been on good salaries and if you were living pay check to pay check and unable to save while having two salaries coming in then you need to go back and take a long look at how you managed your money as I know several families with more kids and only one salary coming in that manage with little to no assistance from the state [by the way stop taking about the state like it's a building somewhere doing sh!t, we are the state]

BostonB

My advice is to avoid any one who won't pay rent in advance, or cover the rent while waiting for RA. That just asking for trouble.

The_Conductor

BostonB wrote: »

My advice is to avoid any one who won't pay rent in advance, or cover the rent while waiting for RA. That just asking for trouble.

I agree.
People need to realise that renting a property is a business decision like any other business decision.
You couldn't walk into a shop and ask for credit towards groceries, with the possibility/probability that you'd be able to pay for them at some future point in time.

People do have a fundamental right to accommodation- and food. It is not the job or duty of a landlord, or a supermarket manager to satisfy those fundamental rights however.

Throw- people's expectations into this equation- and you have a recipe for a lot of very unhappy people.

Things are only going to get a whole lot worse in the immediate future- those lucky enough to have jobs are getting slaughtered with taxes- those unlucky enough not to have jobs- are going to see significant benefit cuts for the first time.

That old Haughey clip about us 'living beyond our means' comes to mind- on so many different levels. We, the ordinary people, have been to believe that Ireland is a wealthy nation- and that as a wealthy nation we can afford all manner of social security and public expenditure. This has skewed people's understanding of what is 'normal'- along with their expectations. Certainly- when the excesses of politicians and some bankers are held up to the spotlight- its very difficult to comprehend that we are not all entitled to a lifestyle like they are.

People are going to have to become a whole lot more intelligent and economical in how they run their every day lives.

tara73

OP, it's very hard to have sympathy for you, you should do some selfreflection about your demands.
everything relevant is already said in the other posts, but additionally, if you worked hard for the previous years, you and your other half, why is it not possible to save some money for things like this?

especially if you have a young family, do you think it's a good idea and responsible to be without obviously any savings and rely completely on the social welfare system?

BostonB

I think this is a flaw in the RA system. For people with no money, they cannot cover the deposit and the rent while the application is being processed.

Its insane to think the LL should loan the Govt and tenant this money, while waiting for this to get sorted. Its just asking for it to be abused.

Likewise if theres any other crisis, its the RA that will get misused as there simply isn't anything else in an emergency. Thus it goes into arrears which the tenant cannot recover from.

Its a flawed system.

Sydney25

I am currently in the situation where I trusted tenants ( after receiving a good reference) moving into my apartment. I politely reminded them to return the lease, signed, to me in the week after they moved in and then every week for months after. They never did.
When I served them with termination of tenancy after many months of late rent, complaints from the neighbours, etc, (including not signing the lease) they immediately complained to the PRTB and provided the lease to them outlining all the points they believed to be unfair. (It was a standard lease, nothing unusual in it). they had never mentioned anything to me. It was just a delaying tactic.
Current situation is, no rent paid, tenant living in the apartment, PRTB case scheduled for two months from now and there is nothing further I can do.

I will not trust anyone again.
As previously stated, renting a property is a business transaction and should be secured in such a manner that both parties are protected.
I didn't do that properly and am now paying the price

Darlughda

athtrasna wrote: »

It is standard in this country that rent is paid in advance. Standard deposit is one month's rent (or more) - which is why 99% of landlords require this.

Indeed, why is not standard then that landlord do not refund their deposits immediately to tenants seeking new accomation. You can't have it both ways, if you demand a deposit up front, you return the deposit upon notice immediately.

tara73 wrote: »

OP, it's very hard to have sympathy for you, you should do some selfreflection about your demands.
everything relevant is already said in the other posts, but additionally, if you worked hard for the previous years, you and your other half, why is it not possible to save some money for things like this?

especially if you have a young family, do you think it's a good idea and responsible to be without obviously any savings and rely completely on the social welfare system?

Despite being an atheist, but for the grace of god go I, quote comes to mind. Well, I hope you never find yourself in such a situation, miss tara, as paying off the esb, gas, etc will be your first priorities until you are desperate enough to be going to the CWO regarding RA.

Sydney25 wrote: »

I am currently in the situation where I trusted tenants ( after receiving a good reference) moving into my apartment. I politely reminded them to return the lease, signed, to me in the week after they moved in and then every week for months after. They never did.
When I served them with termination of tenancy after many months of late rent, complaints from the neighbours, etc, (including not signing the lease) they immediately complained to the PRTB and provided the lease to them outlining all the points they believed to be unfair. (It was a standard lease, nothing unusual in it). they had never mentioned anything to me. It was just a delaying tactic.
Current situation is, no rent paid, tenant living in the apartment, PRTB case scheduled for two months from now and there is nothing further I can do.

I will not trust anyone again.
As previously stated, renting a property is a business transaction and should be secured in such a manner that both parties are protected.
I didn't do that properly and am now paying the price

Errr, holes here, What are you not telling us? PRTB are up their eyeballs in cases and don't take on BS stuff. I don't believe your story. This is obviously a one sided take on something that PRTB have managed, with all their caseload to take seriously, therefore you are not telling us the full and true story here.

BostonB

How can you you return a deposit when a tenant hasn't moved out. That makes no sense.

Seems like a regular case for the PRTB. I don't understand why you think its BS.

That said you have to have empathy for people who are struggling. But not if they take you for a fool.

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

How can you you return a deposit when a tenant hasn't moved out. That makes no sense.

Seems like a regular case for the PRTB. I don't understand why you think its BS.

That said you have to have empathy for people who are struggling. But not if they take you for a fool.

Well, a good landlord gets to know a good tenant over time. When the drop in for rent receipts/signing stuff/ repairs a tenant, who is RA for example, not working, therefore available to be there during the day, should be able to build up some kind of relationship with a landlord.

Indeed, there has to be some element of trust between a landlord and tenant?

There is a huge difference between somebody who is taking you for a fool and somebody who is genuinely struggling. It seems to be the amateruish landlord type who cannot figure out the difference.

athtrasna

So, OP, after all this time do you plan on updating us with your story, have you moved? Is your new landlord still waiting for their money?

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

...
There is a huge difference between somebody who is taking you for a fool and somebody who is genuinely struggling. It seems to be the amateruish landlord type who cannot figure out the difference.

Its irrelevant. Either the rent comes in or the tenant goes out. Its a business.

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

Its irrelevant. Either the rent comes in or the tenant goes out. Its a business.

As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century.

Having mentioned the black and white rent or not argument with recourse to history, I must mention that I would never ever not pay rent to my landlord.

But if he or she tried to illegaly evict me, withhold my deposit, refuse to make essential repairs etc.......

The_Conductor

Darlughda wrote: »

As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century.

Having mentioned the black and white rent or not argument with recourse to history, I must mention that I would never ever not pay rent to my landlord.

But if he or she tried to illegaly evict me, withhold my deposit, refuse to make essential repairs etc.......

Come on Darlughda- you're using the rhetoric of the landlord system from centuries ago to justify the position you're taking?

Tenancy rights in Ireland took a massive swing of the pendulum in favour of tenants- with the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act.

The era of illegal evictions- even in cases where rent isn't being paid- are long over.

Its so sodding difficult for a legitimate landlord to deal with a tenant who is intent on taking the piss- that its really not funny. I've a whole list of cases of tenants living rent-free who know they will eventually have to move- but are very happy with their situation until that day dawns (there are over 20 cases outstanding in Galway alone that fit this category at present).

In the past tenants had absolutely no recourse if they were illegally evicted- now they are the injured party and free to take legal action without any consequence to themselves. Think of the guy in Wexford last year who needed his only property back after loosing his job elsewhere, and tried to move home- only to find his tenants wouldn't move out. He changed the locks and delivered them their belongings- only to end up in court and to fined 14k for an illegal eviction.........

Landlords these days are far more likely to own a single property- than to be the archetypal landlords of yesteryear- and when they get screwed around by a tenant- it crucifies them.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

As the bailiffs said to my great-grandparents when they were evicted from their tenant holding in the late 19th century...

Considering the state will pay peoples rent how is that relevant. The landlord could be someone unable to work, maybe an elderly personal, or a single parent and the rent is their only income.

Zulu

To expect to move into a property for a month, without paying up front is so entitled it's incredible; to presume a person is greedy for expecting someone to pay to use a property they own, work on & and costs them, is so naive it's incredible.

Darlughda

Zulu wrote: »

To expect to move into a property for a month, without paying up front is so entitled it's incredible; to presume a person is greedy for expecting someone to pay to use a property they own, work on & and costs them, is so naive it's incredible.

Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?

Darlughda

smccarrick wrote: »

Come on Darlughda- you're using the rhetoric of the landlord system from centuries ago to justify the position you're taking? .

No. I used that example to show who wrong the position of the bottomline is all that matters position is morally wrong

smccarrick wrote: »

Its so sodding difficult for a legitimate landlord to deal with a tenant who is intent on taking the piss- that its really not funny. I've a whole list of cases of tenants living rent-free who know they will eventually have to move- but are very happy with their situation until that day dawns (there are over 20 cases outstanding in Galway alone that fit this category at present).

In the past tenants had absolutely no recourse if they were illegally evicted- now they are the injured party and free to take legal action without any consequence to themselves. Think of the guy in Wexford last year who needed his only property back after loosing his job elsewhere, and tried to move home- only to find his tenants wouldn't move out. He changed the locks and delivered them their belongings- only to end up in court and to fined 14k for an illegal eviction.........

Landlords these days are far more likely to own a single property- than to be the archetypal landlords of yesteryear- and when they get screwed around by a tenant- it crucifies them.

Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?

Ortiz

Darlughda wrote: »

No. I used that example to show who wrong the position of the bottomline is all that matters position is morally wrong



Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?

If a tenant doesn't pay rent it can take months for the PRTB to have a hearing. The PRTB is known to be pro tenant/anti landlord. Most of the time it just isn't worth going down the PRTB route when you're a landlord and just try to evict the tenant yourself and cut your losses

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?

Because the point of a deposit is to cover damage found when the client leaves, at the final inspection, and handing over the keys. Not when the client gives notice.

BostonB

Darlughda wrote: »

....Really? Under what circumstances is a tenant able to stay in a property like that without paying rent? Surely PRTB will make them get out and pay the rent owed?

No the PRTB has no power to evict a tenant. The PRTB just delays the process of going to court. The legal process can take years, and cost the landlord 10~20K+ in costs. Whereas it almost impossible to recover any money from a tenant who has none. With respect. You simply don't know the full facts to offer an informed opinion.

Darlughda

BostonB wrote: »

Because the point of a deposit is to cover damage found when the client leaves, at the final inspection, and handing over the keys. Not when the client gives notice.......With respect. You simply don't know the full facts to offer an informed opinion.[/

With respect, do not patronise me. I simply asked for more clarification regarding the PRTB/landlord situation

The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.

Sydney25

Darlughda wrote: »

Errr, holes here, What are you not telling us? PRTB are up their eyeballs in cases and don't take on BS stuff. I don't believe your story. This is obviously a one sided take on something that PRTB have managed, with all their caseload to take seriously, therefore you are not telling us the full and true story here.

The issue is very simple. Due to the law, there are people living in my apartment after been served correct notice, not paying rent and based on the current legislation they do not have to move.

I'm sorry you don't believe what I am saying but maybe it is in your interests to not have exposed that decent landlords are can be ripped off by tenants abusing the laws that were set up to provide them protection.

I do not believe the PRTB are biased in any direction but their workload has now become so great and with the delay in getting a hearing, that they are exposed to abuse by both landlords and tenants. In my particular case it is the tenant who is abusing the system.

thecommander

Darlughda wrote: »

The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.

That's not the landlords problem.

BostonB

Please don't edit my comments, when you quote them, thats unfair. those two comments were not connected when I posted them.

Your commenting on the PRTB process without any understanding of it. Pointing that out is not patronizing.

Darlughda wrote: »

With respect, do not patronise me. I simply asked for more clarification regarding the PRTB/landlord situation

The fact remains if a tenant is reliant on social welfare-well they just cannot magic another deposit out of thin air if they need to provide a deposit to secure another place.

Thats a flaw in the RA process.

Handing a deposit back before a tenant leaves, completely defeats the purpose of getting a deposit in the first place.

Zulu

Darlughda wrote: »

Then why don't landlords return their tenants deposits immediately to ensure they can secure new accomodation?

Well that's straight forward: because the landlord needs to verify that the deposit isn't required to cover any damage.

BostonB

There's another issue too.

With other clients they pay their rent and then there's a deposit. So while the deposit shouldn't be used as rent. It will actually cover it if there's no damage or damage is minimal. Wear and tear being accepted as normal.

Paying a month in arrears, means any non payment of rent is not covered by the deposit, as the tenant is into the 2nd month when that happens. So there really should be 2 months deposit for RA tenant. Which has its own issues.

Its flawed system.

Darlughda

Well the system is flawed. Majority of cases with Threshold are landlords not returning deposits on spurious grounds.

It would be so much better is there was an independent agency for the holding of deposits. Is there not proposals to do just that?

That way the transfer of deposit from one accomodation to another would not depend on some one who needs housing, is a good tenant, having to find money that just is not there as a holding deposit.

BostonB

All roads lead back to the govt/state. You're blaming the symptoms not the cause. Its done differently in other countries.

athtrasna

This thread has gone so far off topic. The OP is clearly frustrated with how the system works, as evidenced here and in the other thread.

The bottom line is the system, flawed and all as it is, is how it is and everyone has to work with it. Any landlord has the right to chose their tenants and apply any criteria they want to seek tenants..be it not taking smokers, pets, students, or RA. If they are in a position to be able to afford to be choosy then nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. Agencies only ever act on the instructions of a landlord, obeying the landlord's requirements in tenants is what they are being paid to do and as such the title of this thread in the context of the OP is not fair.

OP I ask again, have you moved?

Darlughda

athtrasna wrote: »

This thread has gone so far off topic. The OP is clearly frustrated with how the system works, as evidenced here and in the other thread.

Firstly Athtrasna, you are not a mod here, so quit your allegations about the thread being off topic.

Secondly, it hasn't. In case you have not noticed it has been all about the deposit and 1st months rent issue for RA tenants.